Christopher Lucas described Black Diamond Ventures' $5.35 million Theranos investment, its limited diligence, and his reliance on information from Holmes and commercial-partner signals. Lynette Sawyer testified that she lacked access and information while serving as laboratory co-director, while the defense emphasized the temporary, limited terms of her assignment.
Full day summary
Christopher Lucas testified that Black Diamond Ventures invested approximately $5.35 million in Theranos in December 2013 after a compressed review. He described limited access to customary financial and laboratory information, identified Holmes as his primary source for answers supplied to investors, and said commercial relationships and rollout announcements contributed to his view that the investment was less risky than in 2006. Cross-examination reviewed early investor materials, disclosed business risks, Black Diamond's own financial modeling, Walgreens-related signals, and the firm's compensation and monitoring duties. On redirect, Lucas said he lacked independent financial information and assumed Holmes's answers were truthful and accurate.
Lynette Sawyer testified that, although she served as a part-time co-director of Theranos's California clinical laboratory, she never entered the laboratory, saw a Theranos-manufactured analyzer, received quality-control data, or communicated with laboratory supervisors. She said the materials she reviewed concerned ordinary FDA-approved assays and that she had not known about twelve assays described in an exhibit as having been run on Theranos devices. Sawyer attributed her resignation to insufficient laboratory and personnel information and an inability to address SOP concerns. On cross-examination, she acknowledged that the consulting arrangement was intended to be temporary and limited, did not require on-site work, and that she never requested a site visit.
After testimony ended, the parties disputed proposed use of the CMS inspection report and testimony about voided Edison-device tests. The court made no admissibility ruling and directed the prosecution to submit its proposed evidentiary path in writing for later argument.